Forums | MacLife

I think it's funny how we refer to it as "losing one's virginity".  I sure as hell didn't lose much, but I gained a heck of a lot.

To me, it makes the most sense to just wait until marriage.  But, in our culture, marriage just kept getting moved back.  It seems that, because of the fact that people aren't maturing (by whatever standards the culture sets) as fast, the age of adulthood simply got pushed back.  Either the standards are rising or the parents are doing a worse job (I would bet on the latter).  Once, guys would be married by 15 or 16 meaning there was less of a wait to lose their virginity.  Seems natural considering how one feels going through that age.  But now, people aren't getting married until at least 18, but usually until somewhere in the mid-20's.  So, waiting for marriage in this time contradicts how you feel as you're growing up.

I think another aspect of this is our culture screaming, "Sex is bad, sinful, shameful, disgusting, dirty, etc. (which is exactly why you should save it for your spouse)!"  It isn't only ingrained into one's mind that the act of sex is a terrible thing but anything to do with the subject is to be avoided.  Thus, kids grow up being slightly uncomfortable with the opposite sex because of this and might avoid much healthy interaction with the opposite sex.

Orion wrote:

Tria wrote:

That's sad.    It's so easy to be safe.

The trouble is that there is no such thing as "safe sex"

There's no such thing as safe anything.

Tria wrote:

Orion wrote:

Tria wrote:

That's sad.    It's so easy to be safe.

The trouble is that there is no such thing as "safe sex".  The whole act of sex is to procreate, and it only takes one sperm cell out of the hundred million or so the guy leaves behind to get a girl pregnant.  My friend and his wife wanted to wait with kids till they were financially secure.  Then she forgot to take the pill that one time and ended up having twins because of it.  I have heard of girls getting pregnant because the guy's condom broke.  You can never be totally sure she won't get pregnant unless he has no balls or she has no ovaries.  I highly doubt that anyone would want to go that route in high school just to have sex.  In fact, the one girl in my class that got pregnant was using birth control when she became pregnant.  She wasn't on the pill, but I can't remember what she was using at the time.  He also had a condom, or so she said.  smurf happens. 

Yes, which is why you should be responsible and take your pill, or make sure to use a more reliable form of birth control than a condom.  If you can't handle the responsibility of the pill, perhaps an IUD or patch or ring, something that doesn't have to be taken daily.  Forgetting a pill is just irresponsible.  Which isn't to say I haven't been there, but you can't say "sex isn't safe" if somebody screwed up their birth control.

Yes, but no form or birth control is 100% effective.  Things go wrong even when people are extra careful.  Even if you use birth control, there is the possibility of getting STD's as well.

As a side note:  One thing that really gets me is when a girl (usually in high school or college) gets pregnant and right away everyone seems to blame the guy.  "Yeah, he got his girl pregnant." or "He knocked her up."  Getting pregnant is a two way street.  Unless he forced himself on her, she had just as much responsibility in the act as he did.  I don't know if this happens in other areas, but around here, it always seems to be the guy's fault.  Even the courts in my area seem to always side with the women.  If a woman doesn't want to get pregnant, then she should take steps to prevent it.  Its her body, she needs to take care of it as she sees fit, and not rely on others to do it for her. 

bullsmurf.  The girl has to walk around with a swollen tummy for 5 months.  Do you know what kind of social stigma that is, that the guy doesn't have to deal with?  Yes, the girl should take steps to prevent pregnancy, and using both a pill and a condom is a good idea.  But you can't say that the stigma on a guy is worse than that on a girl.

Around here, it seems that the girl is pittied and the guy is blamed.  Two of my friends have kids because they had sex with their girlfriends, one in High School, and one in college.  Both of them were harassed by people they know and people they didn't for being so irresponsible.  The one guy's parents felt so sorry for his girlfriend that they had her move in with them and they take most of his paycheck and give it to her.  The courts around here also seem to hand out child support payments to women all the time in cases like this, but if the guy keeps the kid, they get nothing.  This may just be a regional thing, but it is what I have noticed.  It seems as though people around here think that the poor girls were just tricked into having sex so young because of brash, irresponsible men.  I call that bullsmurf.

i don't see how "waiting for marriage" can work. i've had to break up with women after the first sexual encounter if it wasn't any good, or not my style. once you're married and have sex for the first time, what do you do if you are sexually incompatible? just say oh well and deal with it? not me..... i can't be in a serious relationship, let alone marry someone, if the sex isn't good.

so what is a good age? whenever you feel ready and have an opportunity. for me i was 15. i would have lost my virginity earlier if an opportunity had presented itself.

I lost mine on the eve of my 16th birthday.....so it's a little fuzzy as to whether I was 15 or 16 when I lost my virginity. It's also kinda blurry because of the inebriation....

...so ALL IN ALL not a very memorable or special first for me.

Now the first time I had sex with a WOMAN I was 19. That was far more.....*memorable*.

Sex is a tricky thing though. There is always the potential for sex to turn into something dangerous, and God knows that we don't always make the wisest choices as adolescents (I know *I* didn't). But I don't regret becoming sexually active at that age, and I value the experience and lessons that I have learned.

I have to agree with stoned, and say that sexual compatability is extremely important to a long-term relationship. Friendship, caring, blahblahblah are important, but let's be totally honest people - an exciting, healthy sex life is *also* what keeps the relationship alive.  I'd want to make sure that that aspect of the relationship was established before I'd commit to spending my life with that person.

stoned wrote:

i don't see how "waiting for marriage" can work. i've had to break up with women after the first sexual encounter if it wasn't any good, or not my style. once you're married and have sex for the first time, what do you do if you are sexually incompatible? just say oh well and deal with it? not me..... i can't be in a serious relationship, let alone marry someone, if the sex isn't good.

so what is a good age? whenever you feel ready and have an opportunity. for me i was 15. i would have lost my virginity earlier if an opportunity had presented itself.

I think there is a lot more to a marriage than sex. If you only plan on being married 5-10 years, then I guess that makes sense. I'd rather find someone that was compatible with my personality, the sexual compatibility will follow.

Here's a fun site, while we're on the subject:

Iron Hymen

gradient wrote:

midgetcop wrote:

gradient wrote:

I think there is a lot more to a marriage than sex. If you only plan on being married 5-10 years, then I guess that makes sense. I'd rather find someone that was compatible with my personality, the sexual compatibility will follow.

Of course there's more to marriage than sex. But sex is certainly an important part of marriage.

Sure it is, but the vast majority of human marriages have occurred before sex and the couples have turned out fine.

I find it difficult to believe there is a major problem of people truly being in love with a person, having very compatible personalities, but yet still unable to be satisfied with their compatibility of their partner in bed.

Sure couples have turned out fine. And some haven't. And some couples in the past have gotten married specifically so they could be "allowed" to have sex. Whatever.

And I'm not saying that there's a "major problem". But from my *own* experience, I couldn't imagine feeling that I completely and intimately know my partner unless I've taken that final step with them. I can't separate sex and romantic love (must be that Woman-Thing™). To me they go hand in hand. Sex is the ultimate expression of that love. Now how could I marry someone unless I've had that experience with them?

Last edited by midgetcop (2005-09-19 11:31 am)

Malkin wrote:

gradient wrote:

Sure it is, but the vast majority of human marriages have occurred before sex and the couples have turned out fine.

  I'd love to see your evidence for that!

I guess he's not talking about couples that got preggors and then opted for a speedy-wedding!

jeff-o wrote:

He's probably including countires apart from the USA.  There is a big, big world outside the US borders, people! 

Oh, that's half my point.

This thread is boring.  I thought it was going to be a discussion of a Madonna song. 

Malkin wrote:

gradient wrote:

Sure it is, but the vast majority of human marriages have occurred before sex and the couples have turned out fine.

  I'd love to see your evidence for that!

I would think he's talking about arranged marriages - people haven't always gotten married only for love. In fact, doing so is a relatively recent idea - moreover, I would bet that a lot of the more visible marriages we see today are not, strictly speaking, marriage for love. I think Tom Arnold and Dennis Rodman could tell you more.